Deeparaj v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.35676 of 2025 Deeparaj ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.53 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.53 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Swami Subramanian For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(2), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS in Cr.No53 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. seeks anticipatory bail.

1/5

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is running a agency for sending the workers to Singapore and collected a sum of Rs.6.18lakhs from the defacto complainant and arranged a job. Further it revealed that the petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.2.52lakhs to the employer who was given employment and since the remaining amount has not been paid. The defacto complainant was sent back to India, which led to the registration of the FIR. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an agent. He was one of the friends referred the another person for getting an employment and accordingly the money was also paid directly to the other persons not to the petitioners herein. Further, the defacto complainant was given employment at Singapore and subsequently, he was sent back to some other reasons. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the total amount collected by the petitioner was Rs.6.18lakhs and after paying Rs.2.52lakhs to the employer, this petitioner has swindled Rs.3.66lakhs which resulted in termination of employment of the defacto complainant 2/5

Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the FIR and connected materials revealed that the defacto complainant was already lodged a complaint before the Vaduvur Police Station in this regard and there was also an enquiry taken place in this regard. Further, the complaint was lodged as early in the year of 2025. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mannargudi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any 3/5

one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial:

(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (g)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

05.01.2026 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Mannargudi

2. The Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras,Chennai 600 104.

4/5

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.35676 of 2025 05.01.2026 5/5